*I’m thinking “Advanced Citadel Torpedoes of Doom T2” which would be the towers only defence, only operable in pre-Emitter destruction defence mode, and have explosion velocity stats so they do next to nothing for small ships, but OWWWW! damage to Carriers and Dreadnaughts forcing them to warp out or die or not come in in the first place.

*The gravitational effect of the “defence mode” could also effect all large gravitational bodys in its area (capital ships) and change the signal strength of ships with very large MASS, making it impossible for a fleet of carriers to lock each other fast enough to remote rep, unless massively compromising there tank and cap regen by fitting a near full rack of sensor boosters… just an idea.

*With the emitters offline, the tower can no longer fire its uber capital pwning citadel torpedos of doom, and the capitals can come in.

- With capitals firing on the tower (or not) it will go into reinforced mode almost as we currently know it, it will burn stront, and exit reinforced mode based NOT on the amounts within it, but based on an interface setting which can be adjusted by the alliance holding sovereignty and the *administrator* password (not the bubble access password) yup… two passwords, you like that don’t you?

(its either passwords or roles, and I think adding alliance level roles in the age of holding corps and holding alts would be a pain in the ass and a security risk, and probably difficult to code.)

- Stront / reinforced timers can be adjusted up to 30 minutes AFTER the tower entered siege, after which the tower automatically loads its default user set level into its main strontium reactor.

- The maximum user interface access range of the tower is 150km, a covops ship will be the obvious choice to get into the system and set the stront level, because of the extremely long range of the tower/user interface, the covops will have to be stopped from getting into the system in the first place, trying to stop it from reaching the tower would be a near futile exercise.

- This forces the attacking fleet to keep a defensive gang on the gate, weather they are expecting a response or not, so they have a hope of killing the incoming covops, they would have to put either a HIC or a anchored bubble on the gate to have much hope of catching the covops, with T2 large bubbles I think this is a reasonable balance of risk for the covops, since to get lucky and decloak the covops the defending fleet has to bubble itself. do smartbombs still decloak covops? This could be an actual reason for fast ships to fit small and micro smartbombs)

- After the tower exits siege mode, the sov holding alliance loses all user interface controls with it until it is repaired in the usual POS warfare manner, however just repairing the tower will not stop the contest of sovereignty.

(not sure about this, there are many other ways this could work, such as the tower going neutral and being useless to both parties, or the tower turning control over to the successful attackers, if that were to be the case, the tower could have other advantages, such as a more resilient shield that could be fuelled by the players inside it, this could also work for both parties while they control it. Etc etc, lots of room for idea here.

- As the controlling alliances loses communications with the tower, the attacking covops (remember the one from earlier that detected the position of the first towers “partner” tower?) can run another scan, and will find the next tower that must to be hit – yup, the attacked pair of towers are now linked to another pair of unharmed towers in that constellation – once a pair of systems is put into reinforced within a constellation, it sets up a randomly defined chain of systems that have to be hit next – in specific order, as each pair is put into reinforced, another tower in another pair is revealed – this information is not available prior to the pair going into reinforced, it is random chance.

- This information is only available (able to be scanned for) for 5 minutes after the tower pair go’s into reinforced, after this time if that information has not been scanned it is lost, and there is no way to continue further contention of the entire constellation until the tower pair exists reinforced mode, BOTH the attacking and defending parties must scan for this information… unless they have spys ;)(They can find this information the “hard way” later)

- Now that the constellation’s sovereignty has been successfully challenged, ALL the towers in the constellation are in a semi-defence mode, DEFCON 3 if you will…they AND there OUTER shields are now more or less invulnerable, this has turned these 5 minute temporary shelters into hardened bunkers for the duration of the first towers pairs siege mode, this prevents any further contest of any towers in the constellation for the duration of siege mode.

- When the reinforced TOWER PAIR exits reinforced mode, ONLY the next tower pair that was found with the earlier scan in the constellation exit there “hardened bunker defcon 3 mode”, this means that if you didn’t get a scan off in time after the first two towers entered reinforced, you now have no idea where your enemy is going to strike next, you can’t camp a specific gate unless your constellation only has one entry point, this reduces the blob even further, makes intel and scouts extremely important, and makes one entry point constellations more tactically useful.

- The next tower pair in the chain MUST be attacked within 6 hours ** after the first tower pair exists reinforced mode, if this does not happen all progress is lost and the towers return to normal operation and the first two systems are no-longer contested.

** or more? Not sure about this. should this somehow be a kind of reinforced timer like mechanic for the attackers? THIS IS A BIG ISSUE with this whole design / idea and needs more work, I think that there must be some kind of reinforced mode like mechanic to prevent attackers from just showing up at off-peak timezones and contesting sov without having to fight because their enemies are incapable of being effective due to real-life constraints, but with such a system where there is a long chain of events that can be broken and cause the attackers to be set back to square one, there should also be a balance to it so the defenders can not just set 12 hours of reinforced knowing there enemies will be sleeping then.

Note: one possible method for this to work could be a form of escalation of timeframes, for example:First pair in reinforced: next pair must be contested within 6 hours or contention of constellation is lost.Second pair in reinforced: next pair must be contested within 8 hours or contention of constellation is lost.Third pair in reinforced: next pair must be contested within 10 hours or contention of constellation is lost.Etc.Not sure about this either, but its an idea…

- A very optional idea I thought of, is that once the emitter array is replaced, and then the towers shields (both inner and outer) are repaired, forcing the next contention of sov to involve hitting the first 2 towers (or first 4, 6, etc) as well as the next two in the chain, but only in pairs, not all at once.

As I said, very optional idea, I’m not even sure when / at which point it would be fair to let the defenders repair the shield bubbles, the emitters however can only be replaced when sov is no-longer contested in that constellation.

- Once ALL system/tower pairs in a constellation have been put in reinforced, there are two options that I’m thinking where it should go… either:

1. After the last system pair exit reinforced mode. there is one more target to hit – a deathstar like tower that would have player manned guns… but of weaker DPS output than our current large, bonused POS guns… but more of them - say up to 30 manned guns, this tower would be the last thing to be DISTROYED (no reinforced mode) and would have no such restrictions such as links to other towers, meaning a full on balls to the wall blobfest full of capitals and all the good stuff we enjoy now.

2. The constellation simply falls once the last tower chain exits reinforced, at which point the ownership of all towers switches from the defending alliance to the attacking alliance, if the constellation has an outpost in it, that must be shot down to zero shields as per current mechanics… could also have some kind of reinforced mechanic on the outpost as well, making any const. with an outpost slightly harder to take.

A big change you may at this point notice about this idea, is that you are no-longer owning/controlling the towers in system-by-system fashion, or pair-by-pair fashion, you either hold the entire constellation, or the entire constellation is in contest (via proxy of 2,4,6,8 etc systems), or you don’t hold it at all.

DEFENCE MECHANICS.As you’ve probably well noticed by now, the main objectives of this idea involves breaking up the blob, making co-ordination, intel and actual piloting skills and ships and fits work harder for victory.What you’ve probably also noticed by now is that this breaks up the attacking blob very well… what it does NOT do so far is do anything at all to break up the defenders, who so far would be able to just blob the **** out of attacking party.

There are a few ideas I have kicking around for this, but unfortunately the perfect solution has eluded me, the best idea I’ve come up with is essentially the same as the attacking mechanic, roughly being that after both the linked towers have had there emitters destroyed, a repurposed dreadnaught or possibly a new class of ship could produce a defensive field of its own, linked to another dreadnaught in the other system, which like the towers would both have to be disabled simultaneously by two separate gangs.

Anyway, that’s long enough, and if you sat through all that – well done, heres a cookie

Posted - 2008.04.20 12:15:00 -
[634]
Being a fairly new player, I'm not really sure the current system works, but this is how I feel the system should work:

Whoever controls the most starbases in a system, owns it.

Have a maximum of 1 starbase per planet/moon in the system, which are upgradable over time (the longer you have possession of a system, the better defended it is).

Starbases can be both destroyed or captured.

I really don't think stargates should have a say in who controls the place. After all, if an army camps outside of a city to stop the supply routes, they still can't claim it as their own until the defenders are repelled.

Originally by:RichaniousBeing a fairly new player, I'm not really sure the current system works, but this is how I feel the system should work:

Whoever controls the most starbases in a system, owns it.

Have a maximum of 1 starbase per planet/moon in the system, which are upgradable over time (the longer you have possession of a system, the better defended it is).

Starbases can be both destroyed or captured.

I really don't think stargates should have a say in who controls the place. After all, if an army camps outside of a city to stop the supply routes, they still can't claim it as their own until the defenders are repelled.

Just seems to make sense

This IS how it works currently

The problems with the current system, in my view, are:

- Its boring, no-one gos into a sovereignty war without thinking that they can bring sufficient numbers and take acceptable losses, the actual process of taking sov is boring for both sides, either your shooting structures or your repairing structures, many assaults on POS’s happen without or with very little actual PvP.

- If one or both alliances decide to, and can afford to “POS Spam” to victory (just put up excessive amounts of pos’s on all available moons) it just causes excessive amounts of “PvT” (Player vs. Tower, ,2008 Alski) which is… boring.

- Again with the “PvT” issue, in a previous major patch, all the POS guns got moved outside of the shield bubble, and became shootable targets and possible to disable, the intention was to give the sub-BS support fleet something to do, but what it actually did was just increase the time needed to put a POS in reinforced mode, and the amount of remote repairing needed to save one exiting reinforced, and all of that is… dun dun dah… Boring.

- It just causes excessive amounts of blobing, because of the serious nature and isk value of a POS possibly being destroyed and sovereignty being challenged, any decent alliance will respond with ALL available numbers, and similarly the attacking parties will be expecting that and putting everything they can find on the field, this leads to…

- Laggggggg. Too many ships all in the same place, and too many Carriers all with 11-15 drones each, is just too much for the current hardware available, CCP is slowly fixing this, massive fleet fights are noticeabley better than they were a few months ago, and we haven’t even had the server upgrade or infiniband yet, which we are told will help dramaticley, but even when CCP have all that and 150v150 fights will be lag free… people will just start bringing 250v250 etc… the main reason large alliances of alliances can’t bring that much already is just because so many people don’t find those numbers and the accompanying lag fun.

- Two Alliances with the same number of people and same combat ability go to war over a outpost system that has 60 moons open for POS spam, one alliance has 3 dysprosium moons, the other has 10, the one with 10 will likely win as to them the cost of 30 deathstar pos’s is insignificant.While this is a more a large scale imbalance of 0.0 and not only a sovereignty issue, it has too much effect on the ability of a few alliances to wage sovereignty contention.

- POSs need fuelling, lots of sov means LOTS of POS fuelling, and NOTHING in this game is more tedious and annoying and boring than fuelling POSs imo, I would happily sit shooting POS mods for 3 hours every damn night if I never had to fuel a POS again

I’m sure there’s a load more reasons why current the sov system needs an overhaul… but you get the idea.

Another vote here. I love the SP idea. I think it needs some further tweaking to make it more viable.

In order to encourage fighting and cooperation there should be 2 brands of sovereignty. Cooperate and Allied. A corporate presence should be able to defend itself and alliances should not be a forced game mechanic. As such if a cooperation enters a system and earns enough SP they should be able to take advantage of sovereign anchoring. The total number of sovereign systems or regions should be limited, or the game universe should be forced to expand at a rate greater than the population can feasibly capture.

Sovereignty limitations { I don't know what the magic number is or should be. There should, however be a limit to how much space can be owned. If you want to entice more players into the areas you need to make it so that Alliances are not a forced mechanic. Limiting the space that any single group can control will make everyone work smarter and allow more opportunities for the little people. I am probably speaking out of my ass here but I don't really believe that everyone wants to be in mega alliances and corps. If you want to get into 0.0 you are almost forced to make one sided trade agreements or join the blob. That is a sad state for eve to be in. I think SP and system limits would solve a portion of that. It is just silly that resources sit, un used because the folks who could use them cant fend off a 100 man blob who has no interest

SP - I like all of the designs where this is earned, over time, by doing things within the system. You should not be able to take a system by anchoring a POS and calling it a night. POS warfare should not be the central component. The total productive time in the system should count for something. So should combination earning. If you are actually IN a system and you frequently harvest its resources, fight there, build there etc. that is home. You SHOULD own that area. If you are not routinely active in the system you shouldn't be able to stake claim to it just because you have a pos fuel or want to camp something.

What I like

Harvesting resources - Points are earned for mining asteroids, moons, ice, gas etc. The higher quality the resources, higher the time multiplier (takes longer). Something has to be done to make it harder to take control of valuable systems and resources.

Manufacturing - Points are given for manufacturing. More points for larger ship / part construction.

Research - More points for active research jobs and multipliers based on the value of the Bps or the ore

Ratting - Bounty Based ??

Warfare - Seems like a open invitation for exploits but I think it can be done smartly. Work it so that standing gains for the attackers but no benefits to the defenders. They have the benefits of owning the area, (reduced fuel costs, anchoring, building) fighting to keep them is the defense value proposition. Give SP to attacking corps / alliances only. Attacking the operations of groups within the sovereign limits should be a boon to the attackers and provide as a means to overthrow / offset the balance of SP that the controlling faction has. I like all the other ideas about moving harvesting setups outside of the shields.

Posted - 2008.04.21 00:31:00 -
[638]Edited by: Belidonna on 21/04/2008 00:36:27Decay - There needs to be steep penalties for reduced activity. Daily activity should be required to keep the system above the 51% / 0.0 threshold. For every hour of inactivity the rate should multiply so that 48 hours of no activity (mining, battle, construction etc.) results in a full reset to -10. All sovereign benefits halt at anything below 0.0 . The arithmetic should be such that POS and POS activity alone can not hold a system for a day. You have to be active ratting it out, mining or working the gates. If you mined out all the resources in a day, hard luck. If there are not enough resources to keep active in the system maybe you don't need to own it?

Transitions - When enough points have been gained by an opposing group, all non sovereign structures enter into contested mode. This vastly increases the resources required to operate them. The means you have to spend more money to take over a claimed area, or to stay in one after you were booted out. If your POSes are pushed into reinforced mode and you not only burn SP, but more fuel. The longer you run in contested mode the higher this escalates.

Drawbacks and Balance { Increasing sovereignty size should also come with its own set of drawbacks. Perhaps this is just a stacking type penalty. There is an exponential modifier increasing the time and effort required to level up in 5 systems, 10 systems etc. If you only own 2 or 3 systems and are highly active in those systems , your SP levels quickly. If you try to own many, it takes longer to earn the points and they decay faster. You can become big, but you must be big and active. The price of being so large is that it is very easy to drop your outer rim. The last added systems would be the first to drop, and so on. You can not be a sleeping giant.

Leveling { as you maintain the areas longer and longer you begin to get other benefits. Your technology adapts to the environment allowing you to improve your industrial pipeline and combat effectiveness in those systems. Perhaps SP is also tied to individuals. The people who spend the most time in a system and earn the most SP for that system are more adapted. They build faster, mine better and fight harder in the systems they are more acclimated to.

Originally by:Dorvil BarranisSovereignty Points: A point value would be tied to the various activities that influence sovereignty. This will also allow the system to be dynamic, and subject to periodic tweaks, without having to be completely revised to be adjusted. If you have more then 51% of the sovereignty points (SP) within a system, you hold sovereignty on the system, and get your alliances name on the system. Systems without a clear majority are considered contested. Holding sovereignty of all systems in a constellation give you constellation sovereignty, and all constellations within a region gives you regional sovereignty. The SP you have are reduced by a percentage each downtime, possibly cut in half, and the sovereignty percentages are adjusted. The purpose of reduction is to prevent an alliance that has held a system for a year of having an overwhelming number of SP that a new comer could never compete with. Any alliance with any percentage of sovereignty will be able to view the current percentages of control, and what has scored points for those percentages. This information is only available after each downtime, so that it cannot be used to immediately reveal threats to sovereignty.

Nice. One further suggestion: award Sov-points to the Corps and pilots that earn them and treat them as a transferrable vote. Don't implement this as a periodic vote like the rl, but instead as a continuous adjustable allocation to a voting pie that can be shifted with a cool-down after each shift, possibly related to the size of the voting block.

That way, several alliances in one constellation could award one of their number Sov.

Also make some types of sov-points fixed - while you have X you get this block of points - and others float - they burn off at Y rate and you gain them by doing diverse things.

The following concept is based on my earlier post[630], which gives system sovereignty to anyone controlling the deadspace area.

Adding to this, is the benefit of gaining limited control of the stargates, by changing the point of entry of an incoming ship, specifically its distance from the stargate on entry, optionally with 15km radius at minimum up to 100km radius at maximum. Default radius will be set to 50km, to encourage spacetravel and encourage people to build an empire and try to control space.

Posted - 2008.04.21 16:51:00 -
[641]
I would think that the SP system has more merit than any of the singular ideas.

Controlling or using the dead space areas could be another activity that helps earn Sovereign Points for that system.

The voting idea also sounds cool but may be too exploitable and much more like an easy button. If I hang out in my systems and ear points, I can dump them all together and take over , or try to take over a competitors system. It may prove interesting if those points are reset when you leave and or join an alliance.

Posted - 2008.04.21 22:26:00 -
[642]
If anyone has ever played Starcraft. The zerg hatcheries when built will slowly grow a creep on the ground around it.

The starbases should act like that. While sovereignty is the creep.

The permanent starbases are the strong anchors of sovereignty. You then introduce combat starbases which are smaller starbases which are destructable and have defenses. Which help expand the sovereignty. Poses have no effect otherwise.

be carefull in making a drastic change for the sake of quicker battles or to serve the needs of the few who post here. Most of 0.0 people I have talked to like what what is in place already and are looking for more details - excuses for skirmish warfare and not just fleet battles.

for example, uncloaked enemies that continuously hang in sovereign system may help in eroding sovereignty creating a natural reason for even carebear areas to hunt or lose sovereignty.

either be careful, personally I have experienced mmo with drastic changes and that usually causes a massive exodus of dedicated players. I believe you are quite popular now so try to capitalize on what you have

Most of 0.0 people I have talked to like what what is in place already and are looking for more details - excuses for skirmish warfare and not just fleet battles.

for example, uncloaked enemies that continuously hang in sovereign system may help in eroding sovereignty creating a natural reason for even carebear areas to hunt or lose sovereignty.

serev

Good Point. I think that moving the route of SP and decay will enable that. If other folk are traveling through your system , haning out, or using its resources that effects your sovereignty by eroding it and is a + to their takeover attempt. SO even ratting or mining are hostile and need to be dealt with.

1) What is star system sovereignty supposed to mean in the end, and specifically what are the rewards.2) Exactly what activities yields sov points.3) Exactly how does the activities lead to build up sov points.3) How are sovereignty points is to be calulated in the end.

Posted - 2008.04.23 20:41:00 -
[647]
how about the following idea on capturing gates:

Gates send information on who passes to the owner, and can be taken by a proficient hacker. Naturally the defenders can attack the hacker to make the attempt fail. During the hacking attempt, the gate doesn't send any info to the owner.

Higher degrees of sovereignty will make the gates much harder to hack, perhaps even taking several succsessful hacking attempts.

this will make small gangs able to lead larger fleets unseen into a system. Medium gangs (able to protect the hacker while he's busy) might even be able to take control of gates of poorly protected systems.

regaining the gate will take a successful hacking by the defenders, likely modified by the level of sovereignty they have in the system.

Posted - 2008.04.24 00:45:00 -
[648]
Thank you for the support for the Sovereignty Points idea. Here are a few replies to some comments that have been made about it:

Alliance vs Corp Sov: I don't see this as necessary, as I don't believe anything prevents you from forming a one corp alliance. If you want the right to hold sov, you must pay to upgrade your corp and form an alliance, even if you aren't interested in recruiting additional corps.

Transferable SP: If this is allowed at all, it should be for alliance executors, not for individual pilots. To easy for an alliance mole to feed a chunk of SP to another alliance. Although I don't really think it is necessary, as if you want to gang together with another alliance to take sov from one alliance, you attack their pilots and assets to prevent the controlling alliance from gaining or maintaining SP.

Control of Deadspace Complexes: Great, the more activities that yield SP the better, as it will further reduce blob tactics. Also, this will give a place for PVP fits that do not allow microwarp drives, and have maximum ship class sizes allowed. Hello assault frigates with afterburners!

Decay: As stated, after downtime everybody loses half their SP (or some other large number). This mechanic already means that you will not maintain sov if you are less active then another sov contender.

Sovereignty Size: The daily reduction of Sov could be factored off of the number of systems you hold. For example, base line is to drop 50% of sov. Each system you hold multiplies this drop by 1.015. At 13 systems, the drop is 60%, at 24 systems, the drop is 70%. This number of course could be adjusted if that factor is too severe. "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Manufacturing/R&D: Great, the more activities the better. Alliances will be happy to admit industrials in to their corps, widening the 0.0 player base.

Ratting Bounty Based?: This means a 1M rat is worth 10 times the SP as a 100K rat. Obviously a separate SP value will have to be associated with rouge drones.

Voice of Caution: I think there is widespread dissatisfaction towards the current Sov mechanics, this isn't the first time a major overhaul has been made, and the dev that started this thread said that they were open to considering a revision to sov mechanics. Current sov mechanics just encourage unplayable battles that the server cannot handle.

Offensive Warfare Only: I like favoring the attackers for receiving better SP for offensive warfare. The defender already has lots of SP advantages, so it would be cool to put a SP dent in an established defender with a good raid.

Zaiyo Modi, posts 613 and 614 illustrate the activities that earn SP. I won't bother assigning specific point values to each activity, as I do not profess to have enough of an understanding of the levels of activity (ratting, mining, POS, etc) to come up with the right balance. With considerable analysis of the full logs that CCP have available, I think they would be able to decide the correct amount of SP for each activity.

I don't think the advantages of sov need to be changed (or at least I don't currently have a proposal for changing them), so you would still gain additional levels of sov the longer you hold the space, for decreased fuel costs and the right to anchor advanced structures (jump gates, cyno jammers, etc.).

A Further Thought: Obviously different regions have different rat and mining values, so the amount of SP for those activities will vary from region to region. However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it gives different areas a different flavor to the SP mechanics.

Treaties:

Although IFm sure weFll have evolved somewhat in 20k years, currently borders and peace are negotiated through treaties. We want treaties to work like free form contracts, but with regards to space and gate control.

An alliance holding every constellation except for one would be able to negotiate a treaty with the corporation holding that constellation. Basic stuff like monthly payments, collateral and such negotiated and signed upon.

Give me your thoughts on this idea, also keep posting your own ones, lots of good stuff.

You need to implement victory goals with this system.

I dont know if its still posible but back in the old dayes you could just right click on a alliance war and say surrender and the war would be over (no isk not nothing).

Not it would be very interesting to attatch a Treatie to a war, a treaty that stated that a alliance would have to surrender control of this systems and outposts as a tearm of surrender. It would actually make sence to declare war on a 00 alliance to be able to setup this peace treaties.

On a side not for the Borders and Capturing part, it seems very interesting and i would like to see it in on the test server, try the diffrent mechanics timers or how ever this sovereignty would be implemented. However dont forget that there must be limits to this, capturing a gate shouldnt just depend on how many alts you can bring to a solar system some people would actually be able to capture entire regions on there own, so you need limitations to prevent this new alt blobbing from happening with the new system. It would be a katastrofy if it once again was all about having enough alts at a gate in big ships. They could just sit afk untill sov was gained!

There needs to be some skill involved in this and small minigames spawning randomly so that you can not afk take a system. This might be stupid but Ip or MAC restriction to prevent the use of multible accounts to claim sov, this needs to be well thought out as many ISP's use Proxies, home LAN users use routers you name it IPv6 maybe?

Treaties:

Although IFm sure weFll have evolved somewhat in 20k years, currently borders and peace are negotiated through treaties. We want treaties to work like free form contracts, but with regards to space and gate control.

An alliance holding every constellation except for one would be able to negotiate a treaty with the corporation holding that constellation. Basic stuff like monthly payments, collateral and such negotiated and signed upon.

Give me your thoughts on this idea, also keep posting your own ones, lots of good stuff.

You need to implement victory goals with this system.

I dont know if its still posible but back in the old dayes you could just right click on a alliance war and say surrender and the war would be over (no isk not nothing).

Not it would be very interesting to attatch a Treatie to a war, a treaty that stated that a alliance would have to surrender control of this systems and outposts as a tearm of surrender. It would actually make sence to declare war on a 00 alliance to be able to setup this peace treaties.

On a side not for the Borders and Capturing part, it seems very interesting and i would like to see it in on the test server, try the diffrent mechanics timers or how ever this sovereignty would be implemented. However dont forget that there must be limits to this, capturing a gate shouldnt just depend on how many alts you can bring to a solar system some people would actually be able to capture entire regions on there own, so you need limitations to prevent this new alt blobbing from happening with the new system. It would be a katastrofy if it once again was all about having enough alts at a gate in big ships. They could just sit afk untill sov was gained!

There needs to be some skill involved in this and small minigames spawning randomly so that you can not afk take a system. This might be stupid but Ip or MAC restriction to prevent the use of multible accounts to claim sov, this needs to be well thought out as many ISP's use Proxies, home LAN users use routers you name it IPv6 maybe?

see once again a point made where having NPCs spawn would help balance the AFK.

Summary:- A structure is engineered with 3 reactors, which may all be fuelded with strontium.- The force fields/shields, do not recharge but burn fuel if active or decay if idle.- The outer most shield ring will always be active and burn strontium fuel.- Inner shield rings, which may or may not have been fueled, are on standby and decaying if outer most shield is active.- The 3 shield rings have respectfully 90%, 99% and 99.9% shield hardening bonus for all damage types.- The inner shield ring is the strongest, but burns fuel at a much faster rate.- Refueling is dangerous, as refueler may come under hostile fire - A single shield ring must be offlined before it can be refuled.- This idea was thought to be used within a deadspace area, to encourage combat.

Consequences:- Owners may decide to fuel only outer ring and save fuel, or fuel all 3 rings and use more fuel and more work to maintain shield rings at standby as they decay.- Refueling is risky, no force field protection to nearby ships.- Blockades may be devestating for owners of fuel starving structure(s)- Timespan for max strontium burn and decay time are eventually a little random- A small gang may play an important role in demolishing structures that have their shields fully decayed, or for structures with only limited shielding (outer ring).- Patrolling the structueres will be necessary unless ccp allows auto monitoring of shield status/strontium burn/decay.

Any obvious flaws with this idea? I think it can be fun, though I have to say I ahve never owned or fueled a pos before myself.

Posted - 2008.04.29 12:38:00 -
[654]Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 29/04/2008 12:39:01I'd also like to throw my support behind Dorvil's posted ideas. They are a considerable and impressive extension of the ideas various people including myself have thrown around. They are found here:

Originally by:Dorvil BarranisGoal: The purpose of a game is to have fun. Any revision to sovereignty mechanics should further the aim of making the game more enjoyable....

Proposal: If sovereignty was gained and lost through a variety of activities, this will encourage and reward a variety of play. Such activities would include POS ownership, outpost ownership, gate control, mining, and collecting NPC bounties.

I absolutely love the idea that it's what you do in the system generally, rather than focusing purely on POS spam, that determines sovereignty. Well done for such an innovative suggestion.___"If you can't debate using logic & fact, and at least recognise other people's point of view, don't waste time posting on forums. It only makes you look like a teenage idiot."

Posted - 2008.04.30 18:18:00 -
[655]
I can see why a point based system may seem interesting, but I am against anything like that. I think it is (to a larger extend than the current system) a highly abstract system, but such an abstract system is not necessary in Eve.

I would rather see the 0.0 endgame to be based around tangible objects and their benefits and decided by PVP. Gains from any type of exploitation of areas should be the rewards you gain from holding space, not the means to keep or conquer space.

It is still PVP that determines who can operate in an area and earn SP. Although I agree it is more abstracted, but that is where much of the advantage is. There are still tangible objectives, just many more of them, so that it is not necessary to lag out the server to threaten or claim Sov.

Posted - 2008.05.01 01:23:00 -
[657]
Well i believe in K.I.S.S. keep it simple sir. Lots of creative ideas in here but wow i can imagine the time involved..look just remove reinforce mode from all pos's..that'll cut significantly the time it takes to siege em .

Posted - 2008.05.01 05:07:00 -
[658]
I understand what you are trying to do Dorvil, and the ideas that I have about endgame in Eve would work towards some of the same goals that you have with the point system. I'll write something up about how I would like the endgame mechanics to be.

In the meantime you could entertain yourself with some of the following questions if you like:

- How would you deal with "flavor of the patch" activities where players focus on the things that maximize sov. points per hour? Diminishing point gains per activity may help with this.

- If I understand it correctly you are trying to increase the importance of pursueing/disrupting "regular PvE activities" (mining, NPCing) as part of your point system. I think that currently these activities are so easy to disrupt (basically by having a few cloaked "threat ships" sitting AFK in a system) that they more often than not would not play any role when system sovereignity is contested because they are so easy to disrupt. Am I overlooking something regarding this?

Posted - 2008.05.01 12:34:00 -
[659]
I like the idea of diminishing point gains, particularly with POSes. Your first tower gets you more then your second, etc. System would have to be such that you aren't obligated to get a large, a medium, and a small in order to max out the POS SP, so perhaps the diminishing returns starts with the second largest POS and moves down. Also this make sure that putting a small POS in a system with large POSes doesn't hurt the SP income of the large POSes.

Yes, PVE activities are easy to disrupt, but I also think that something needs to be done to avoid allowing a cloaked afk ship to stay in the system, such as a slow method of probing out non-cloak spec'ed ships.

Fort those advocating eliminating reinforced mode, it will be impossible to have any security in deep 0.0. Oh boy, I just lost a fleet of reserve ships because we were attacked while my alliance was at work? Doesn't sound fun to me. Taking the economic buildings outside of the forcefield will allow POSes to be more vulnerable, without forcing you to have all your assets exposed.

Posted - 2008.05.01 14:47:00 -
[660]
I like the infrastructure hits concept. My posts had been about making more infrastructure that would be able to be destroyed, but I like the concept of taking current infrastructure items outside of pos shields.

I dont know if I would make it so all where outside shields but possible make the room inside the shields limited so you have to choose what you protect with everthing else being vulnerable to attack.

Add more purpose to bombers with being able to do surgical strikes, sort of a get in fire a bomb or two and have to leave or get obliterated by turrets.

What about mines for asteroid belts, as a harrassment against mining infrastructure. Laying of mines through out the belt that would have to be destroyed before mining could resume safely. This same notion might be able to be applied to stations and gates as well.

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.